So what kind of action is best for reducing gun crime?
Although this may be a point of contention for many, as a future doctor and as a compassionate and empathetic human being, at some point it becomes unbearable to hear story after story of brutal murder through gun violence. School after school, innocent children being slaughtered. Every time you turn on the news, someone's been shot in your area. 32,000 American's die every year due to gun violence (CDC,2013). That's more people that I'll ever meet, and that's enough to fill a small stadium (every year)! I don't want to be one of them, and I don't want my children or yours to be one of them. Because of this, I've come to the conclusion that my leading value in the gun control debate is Safety.
Admittedly, this makes me biased. I have never held a gun in my life, and will never know how it feels to hold a gun. It hasn't been a part of my culture. Sure, guns have played an important role in defeating our British oppressors, and I think that's pretty cool, but the world's changed a lot since then, and I'm no soldier. I can only imagine what it feels like having something as part of your culture be attacked. Not only does it feel like that something is being attacked, but it also feels like an attack on the rest of one's culture, freedom, family, and on one's self. With all that said, I also can only imagine what it feels like to have a loved one taken away from me. That feeling cannot be worse, and I'd rather give up some of my freedom and culture if it meant saving that life. So admittedly, I'm biased, but if it means saving someone from that horrible pain of loosing a loved one then I'm fine with being biased.
So now that safety has been established as my utmost concern, lets look towards what the research and statistics say when determining what policy promotes safety and reduces gun crime. Granted, more research needs to be done examining various gun policies and their effectiveness in reducing gun crime, however, the research that is currently out there should go far in refuting some arguments and supporting others. Let's dive in...
According to a study analyzing correlations between gun level and crime, the number of guns per capita in a country is a strong independent predictor of gun crime (Bangalore and Messerli, 2013). With the United States claiming the highest number of guns per capita by far (Crime Prevention Research Center, 2014), it is no surprise that the United States also claims the most homicides by firearm. In addition to this research, gun ownership is also a predictor for homicide in the home (Kellermann, et al., 2014), higher suicide rates (Miller, et. al., 2006) and guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempts than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense (Kellerman et. al., 1993).
Keep in mind however this data is correlational, not causal. Although these studies all converge to the same conclusion, that owning a gun can be a predictor for danger and harm, they do not imply that guns cause harm. For example, data showing a reduction in gun crime in countries with fewer guns also have characteristics and circumstances unrelated to gun control to explain their low incidences of gun crime (Briggs, 1976). People in other countries are around the home much more often, which may explain why less gun crime occurs. Also, families that keep a gun in the house may be linked to homicide and suicide since families that feel like they need a gun in the house may live in more crime dense and less happy neighborhoods.
Gun control laws, such as the Brady Bill which denies 60,000 gun transfers yearly (Cook and Jens, 2013), are said to work and make us safer, since reducing the availability of guns "causes" reductions in violence. Causal designs require the manipulation of a variable. It cannot be shown through the correlational designs above that guns "cause" violence since no variable is manipulated. However, there are studies that do show that indeed guns to some extent "cause" violence.
Admittedly, this makes me biased. I have never held a gun in my life, and will never know how it feels to hold a gun. It hasn't been a part of my culture. Sure, guns have played an important role in defeating our British oppressors, and I think that's pretty cool, but the world's changed a lot since then, and I'm no soldier. I can only imagine what it feels like having something as part of your culture be attacked. Not only does it feel like that something is being attacked, but it also feels like an attack on the rest of one's culture, freedom, family, and on one's self. With all that said, I also can only imagine what it feels like to have a loved one taken away from me. That feeling cannot be worse, and I'd rather give up some of my freedom and culture if it meant saving that life. So admittedly, I'm biased, but if it means saving someone from that horrible pain of loosing a loved one then I'm fine with being biased.
So now that safety has been established as my utmost concern, lets look towards what the research and statistics say when determining what policy promotes safety and reduces gun crime. Granted, more research needs to be done examining various gun policies and their effectiveness in reducing gun crime, however, the research that is currently out there should go far in refuting some arguments and supporting others. Let's dive in...
According to a study analyzing correlations between gun level and crime, the number of guns per capita in a country is a strong independent predictor of gun crime (Bangalore and Messerli, 2013). With the United States claiming the highest number of guns per capita by far (Crime Prevention Research Center, 2014), it is no surprise that the United States also claims the most homicides by firearm. In addition to this research, gun ownership is also a predictor for homicide in the home (Kellermann, et al., 2014), higher suicide rates (Miller, et. al., 2006) and guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempts than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense (Kellerman et. al., 1993).
Keep in mind however this data is correlational, not causal. Although these studies all converge to the same conclusion, that owning a gun can be a predictor for danger and harm, they do not imply that guns cause harm. For example, data showing a reduction in gun crime in countries with fewer guns also have characteristics and circumstances unrelated to gun control to explain their low incidences of gun crime (Briggs, 1976). People in other countries are around the home much more often, which may explain why less gun crime occurs. Also, families that keep a gun in the house may be linked to homicide and suicide since families that feel like they need a gun in the house may live in more crime dense and less happy neighborhoods.
Gun control laws, such as the Brady Bill which denies 60,000 gun transfers yearly (Cook and Jens, 2013), are said to work and make us safer, since reducing the availability of guns "causes" reductions in violence. Causal designs require the manipulation of a variable. It cannot be shown through the correlational designs above that guns "cause" violence since no variable is manipulated. However, there are studies that do show that indeed guns to some extent "cause" violence.
The closest thing we can get to an experimental design is the implementation of Australia's 1996 gun ban. Immediately before the 1996 gun ban, a 28-year old named Martin Bryant mowed down 35 people with a semi-automatic assault rifle in Port Arthur. After the shooting, public opinion turned and strict gun laws were implemented. In the 18 years before the ban Australia experienced 13 mass shootings in which 112 people died (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2014) . In the 18 years after the 1996 gun ban, not a single mass shooting was committed. In addition to this, suicide by firearm and overall homicide rate decreased significantly (See graphs on left). The only thing that was manipulated and could explain these findings was the 1996 gun ban.
Additionally, studies in psychology indicate that the mere presence of a gun is sufficient to activate schemas of violence, an effect dubbed "the Weapons Effect" (Berkowitz & Lepage, 1963). |
Although the gun ban in Australia was effective, does this mean that if America follows Australia then we could obtain the same results? Perhaps. Will this ever happen? Hell No!!!
The gun lobby is much too strong in the United States, and gun culture is more deeply rooted than in Australia. The 1996 Australian gun ban included large scale weapon buybacks, voluntary surrender of weapons, and very strict gun regulations. When the 1996 law was passed, 90-95% of Australians approved of stringent gun laws. The United States will never have such support for strict, effective gun laws. This may help explain why in comparison relatively conservative bills such as the Brady Bill in America has had so little success in reducing homicide (Cook and Jens, 2013).
In short, current and proposed gun control laws are much to weak to make a difference in gun crime in the United States. This doesn't mean however we shouldn't try and change popular opinion and push forward whatever modest measures we can. It is for these modest, commonsensical, reasons we fight to protect ourselves, and our children from harm. We fight in the hope of a day when we no longer need to (Obama, 2009).
The gun lobby is much too strong in the United States, and gun culture is more deeply rooted than in Australia. The 1996 Australian gun ban included large scale weapon buybacks, voluntary surrender of weapons, and very strict gun regulations. When the 1996 law was passed, 90-95% of Australians approved of stringent gun laws. The United States will never have such support for strict, effective gun laws. This may help explain why in comparison relatively conservative bills such as the Brady Bill in America has had so little success in reducing homicide (Cook and Jens, 2013).
In short, current and proposed gun control laws are much to weak to make a difference in gun crime in the United States. This doesn't mean however we shouldn't try and change popular opinion and push forward whatever modest measures we can. It is for these modest, commonsensical, reasons we fight to protect ourselves, and our children from harm. We fight in the hope of a day when we no longer need to (Obama, 2009).